lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 09:40:21 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, manfred@...orfullife.com, mingo@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, ggherdovich@...e.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: sem_lock() vs qspinlocks On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:01:00AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 05/20/2016 08:59 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > >On Fri, 20 May 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > >>On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 04:47:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >> > >>>>Similarly, and I know you hate it, but afaict, then semantically > >>>>queued_spin_is_contended() ought to be: > >>>> > >>>>- return atomic_read(&lock->val) & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK; > >>>>+ return atomic_read(&lock->val); > >>>> > >> > >>>Looking for contended lock, you need to consider the lock waiters > >>>also. So > >>>looking at the whole word is right. > >> > >>No, you _only_ need to look at the lock waiters. > > > >Is there anyway to do this in a single atomic_read? My thought is that > >otherwise > >we could further expand the race window Its inherently racy, arrival of a contender is subject to timing. No point in trying to fix what can't be fixed. > The existing code is doing that, but I would argue that including the > locked, but uncontended case isn't a bad idea. It _IS_ a bad idea, you get unconditional lock-breaks. Its the same as: #define spin_is_contended(l) (true) Because the only reason you're using spin_is_conteded() is if you're holding it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists